Ask Slashdot: Should Users Uninstall Kaspersky's Antivirus Software? (slashdot.org) 313
First, here's the opinion of two former NSA cybersecurity analysts (via Consumer Reports):
"It's a big deal," says Blake Darche, a former NSA cybersecurity analyst and the founder of the cybersecurity firm Area 1. "For any consumers or small businesses that are concerned about privacy or have sensitive information, I wouldn't recommend running Kaspersky." By its very nature antivirus software is an appealing tool for hackers who want to access remote computers, security experts say. Such software is designed to scan a computer comprehensively as it searches for malware, then send regular reports back to a company server. "One of the things people don't realize, by installing that tool you give [the software manufacturer] the right to pull any information that might be interesting," says Chris O'Rourke, another former NSA cybersecurity expert who is the CEO of cybersecurity firm Soteria.
But for that reason, Bloomberg View columnist Leonid Bershidsky suggests any anti-virus software will be targetted by nation-state actors, and argues that for most users, "non-state criminal threats are worse. That's why Interpol this week signed a new information-sharing agreement with Kaspersky despite all the revelations in the U.S. media: The international police cooperation organization deals mainly with non-state actors, including profit-seeking hackers, rather than with the warring intelligence services."
And long-time Slashdot reader freddieb is a loyal Kaspersky user who is wondering what to do, calling the software "very effective and non-intrusive." And in addition, "Numerous recent hacks have gotten my data (Equifax, and others) so I expect I have nothing else to fear except ransomware."
Share your own informed opinions in the comments. Should users uninstall Kaspersky's antivirus software?
But for that reason, Bloomberg View columnist Leonid Bershidsky suggests any anti-virus software will be targetted by nation-state actors, and argues that for most users, "non-state criminal threats are worse. That's why Interpol this week signed a new information-sharing agreement with Kaspersky despite all the revelations in the U.S. media: The international police cooperation organization deals mainly with non-state actors, including profit-seeking hackers, rather than with the warring intelligence services."
And long-time Slashdot reader freddieb is a loyal Kaspersky user who is wondering what to do, calling the software "very effective and non-intrusive." And in addition, "Numerous recent hacks have gotten my data (Equifax, and others) so I expect I have nothing else to fear except ransomware."
Share your own informed opinions in the comments. Should users uninstall Kaspersky's antivirus software?
ANY antivirus (Score:2, Interesting)
Uninstall any such snakeoil crap.
Re:ANY antivirus (Score:5, Interesting)
That assumes you can. If your apps are hosted remotely (aka "The Cloud") do YOU know what they are using? What about their subcontractors and sub-subcontractors? What about your bank? Let's keep going and ask about your health care provider. And so on. Do you know?
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
It just depends who you're dumb enough to believe.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They're less "snake oil" than "yesterday's solution."
At this point, for Windows users, I'd simply recommend using the built-in AV and some common-sense precautions. No, it's never rated quite as highly as 3rd party AVs in the number of viruses they catch, but it's completely unobtrusive, lightweight, and has very few compatibility issues. And for any MAJOR attacks, it's typically updated fairly promptly.
These days, the security vulnerabilities they may introduce by hooking deep inside your system are no l
Re:ANY antivirus (Score:4, Interesting)
They're less "snake oil" than "yesterday's solution."
At this point, for Windows users, I'd simply recommend using the built-in AV and some common-sense precautions...
I'm not sure what is the larger risk here; assuming that removing software is going to properly cover your ass in the event of an outbreak, or actually believing that the user community is fluent in "common-sense precautions".
Remember there are times when software is solely used to prevent you from getting fired, particularly when the CxO doesn't see A/V as mere "snake oil".
Re:ANY antivirus (Score:5, Interesting)
For the most part today we don't really deal with individual software but for good or bad we deal with mostly a service Infrastructure.
So if you have an Apple Infrastructure, you may have an iPhone, a Mac and use airdrop to share files and use the iCloud.
If you use the Google Infrastructure, you will have an Android Phone, a PC, using Google Drive
If you are using a Microsoft infrastructure, You are more or less out of the phone, but you have Windows 10, Office 365 and OneDrive
While you can mix these services around, but you are normally better off sticking to the brand you like as it offers better support and extra cool features.
3rd party tools on your infrastructure in general will detract from your experience and your ability to get things, done... (You may not be able to get away from this, due to cost concerns, or just needing a tool that isn't available) However these tools installed are nearly always at risk of being not supported, or breaking something else.
I am not saying this is good thing, being locked to a vendor for bulk of your use cases is overall bad, however this is the world that we currently live in. And you are better off using the Windows AV for windows because in general it is better built and it isn't trying to hack the system to do what it needs to do.
Re:ANY antivirus (Score:5, Interesting)
From what I understand ANY anti-virus or anti-malware tool is susceptible to being targeted by powerful nation-state actors for use is accessing user's computers... not just those from the US or Russia. That means that F-Secure, or any other such tool from any other country could still be hacked by the China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, the US or any other nation-state with an active cyber intelligence programme and used to violate the user's privacy and confidentiality.
I do not know what the real answer is... but I believe that the recent cyber intrusions are going to strengthen the advocacy for sandboxed application models and strict or explicit permissioned based access to computer hardware, software, network and data resources that have become prevalent on modern mobile platforms. Powerful nation-state actors will still try to hack and find vulnerabilities in the underlying operating system host or hypervisor layer, but at least it would give security practitioners a single concerted layer to focus their intrusion detection efforts on.
Protecting the cloud and the various systems, protocols, etc that make up the disparate components of cloud based systems is a whole other kettle of fish, which i think is beyond the scope of the question posed by the original poster.
Re:ANY antivirus (Score:5, Insightful)
The only real answer is fully MAC (Mandatory Access Control) model that is very fined grained. The result of that unfortunately is a computer system nobody really wants to use.
The more immediate reality with A/V software is that its probably something that requires the highest level of trust. This is software that literally hooks into the I/O layers on your system and is allowed to bypass essentially every other kind of access control check. At the same time its hard to put a lot of instrumentation around it because so much of what it does isn't thru the usual OS channels. So you can't know if its misbehaving or doing things it ought not to easily. External network hardware should be able to tell you if its phoning home but that might even be complicated. We are talking about software that after all could stash whatever it wants to send some unused place on the disk and wait three weeks until your not at home but connected to the wifi in some airport and phone home at that time.
Frankly after this and a few past issues, I am not sure any third party A/V solution is advisable. In the Windows world Microsoft should probably just stop even allowing third party kernel modules they have not fully audited. Which would basically kill the A/V industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well yeah, but you see if the AV is using all of the CPU resources, that's just less cycles for the virus to have to execute.
Of course it should be removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course Kaspersky should be removed from your system.
Or if you want to keep it, then don't complain when your files get reviewed by an invasive dictatorship. Of course, in 90% of cases they might not give a two shits about you, but if they do, then Kaspersky is one of their possible tools.
Also, there is absolutely no doubt that Kaspersky and similar Russian-made products should be removed from government networks or any computers handling sensitive information.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
says establishment tool nsa's slaves, .
willing to sacrifice money and blood(usually other americans' ) in wars, propagated by willfully false nsa and ilk, that further the interests of "allies" and exploiters willing to loot other country resources for their private profit,
willing to applaud torture camps and and mass human rights violations, against american laws and constitution,
willing to allow unaccountable mass surveillance by nsa, that dictators in russia can only dream about
etc etc.
-
kaspersky softwar
Re:Of course it should be removed (Score:4, Informative)
Kaspersky BENCHMARKS the shit out of Norton, McCrapee and most others reliably over longer periods of time.
Show us the code, the detail and the proof it has a backdoor or exploit. An open availability of technical explanations proving there is an exploit makes it credible. We've got them for just about everything else so this one stands at odds as an outlier which should ring alarm bells that its political and not founded.
There are two layers of logic to this:
Re:Of course it should be removed (Score:4, Informative)
Absolute FUD.
Kaspersky BENCHMARKS the shit out of Norton, McCrapee and most others reliably over longer periods of time.
Show us the code, the detail and the proof it has a backdoor or exploit. An open availability of technical explanations proving there is an exploit makes it credible. We've got them for just about everything else so this one stands at odds as an outlier which should ring alarm bells that its political and not founded.
There are two layers of logic to this:
Here is the citation of proof of Kremlin involvement [cnbc.com]
Re:Of course it should be removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is the citation of proof of Kremlin involvement [cnbc.com]
Your "proof" says "reportedly" right there in the headline. This is called "hearsay", not "proof". Or in other words, the proof value of that statement is zero.
Re: (Score:2)
There may not be any backdoor code or exploit. The software sends malware samples home, it tells you that much.
What the NSA created really was malware and the product correctly identified that, and sent the sample.
Now here is where it gets problematic. Any company of any size in Russia has its government minders. They are probably just sharing their data with Russian intelligence, because no doing so means they end up drinking sugar laced with heavy radioactive isotopes in their morning tea.
Re:Of course it should be removed (Score:5, Insightful)
People forget that Kaspersky's engine is used by many other security products, too.
The reasonable stance is that if you have important trade secrets on your machines, you should choose your antivirus carefully - it's best to use one from your own country, including the engine. The same for journalists, dissidents, etc. Don't security products from the country you're criticizing.
Any other people aka "ordinary citizens" should just choose the antivirus that performs best and suits them best. Kaspersky is top notch. If you're worried about viruses and maybe a bit about NSA mass surveillance, Kaspersky is one of the best choices. If you're primarily worried about Romanian mass surveillance, on the other hand, then you should avoid Bitdefender. And so on.
It's kind of a no-brainer. On a side note, any machine, no matter how well-patched and which operating system it is running, will be broken and accessed in a targeted attack by any state actor. There are no secure PCs.
Re:Of course it should be removed (Score:4, Insightful)
You shouldn't need anti-virus software at all.
Limiting what applications can do and blocking malicious behaviour is the job of the operating system. If you need a second application with kernel level privileges just to replicate the functionality of the actual kernel, you have a deeper problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Let me paraphrase:
You shouldn't need anti-virus software at all.
Limiting what users can do and blocking malicious behaviour like installing software and the ability to send network traffic is the job of the operating system. If you need a second application with kernel level privileges just to replicate the functionality of the actual kernel, you have a deeper problem.
Now user hostile system aside, there's a reason why anti-virus relies on matching the type of software, actual software lists, or attempting to determine what looks like malware rather than closing off the options for malware to exist: a) users will happily permit malware to install without a thought, b) most malware looks identical to any other application on the system in terms of how it interacts with the OS.
So something as tunable and fungible as software that monitors and attempts to
Re: (Score:2)
The reasonable stance is that if you have important trade secrets on your machines, you should choose your antivirus carefully....
The reasonable stance is that if you have important trade secrets on your machines, you shouldn't store them on anything accessible by Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
Or if you want to keep it, then don't complain when your files get reviewed by an invasive dictatorship.
And also don't complain when a non-U.S. country reviews your files.
Re: (Score:2)
Why install any? (Score:2)
Are antivirus programs really worth the impact on your machine? They use a surprising amount of resources and many experts have voiced opinions that the threats are outrunning their capabilities.
If you want to visit a site that might contain malware, just start a VM or boot a CD-based OS that doesn't use your drives.
When was the last time your antivirus actually prevented an infection? If it did, it definitely told you because they do everything possible to keep your fear level up.
Re: (Score:3)
If you want to visit a site that might contain malware, just start a VM or boot a CD-based OS that doesn't use your drives.
You do realize that includes literally every single website, right? Including this one.
Re: Why install any? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have never had an antivirus program on my personal computer and I've never had problems.
How do you know? Were you expecting popups and silly effects? Were you expecting the virus to inform you of it's wrongdoings in some way?
Re: (Score:2)
> If you worked in an organization which relied on email, you'd very quickly see the point of a good antivirus.
You mean one filled with idiots that click on the stuff that you obviously shouldn't click on?
Although the real problem isn't the dufus but the tool that even allows that to happen.
I remember when the idea of an "email virus" was laughed at. It's a shame that Microsoft changed that. It's baked in the idea of "running random untrusted shit". Almost makes it impossible to get away from.
Re: (Score:2)
I started doing that after the Snowden leaks showed that GCHQ was actively attacking users of this site.
NoScript is the best AV (Score:3)
In the last 10 years or so I have used a Windows PC with anti-virus software to visit an incredible number of web sites of extremely shoddy origin and appearance and I used various p2p software to download all sorts of content on almost weekly basis. As a result, the AV software caught positives may be two or three times in that whole time, and every time this was "there is a dangerous ClickMe.EXE in your torrent folder! do not touch!" (well, what sort of idiot would click that anyways?). Why haven't I run
Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course if I were in Russia I would have my doubts about running US software for the same reason. As a rule of thumb, don't trust code produced by your main adversary.
Re: (Score:2)
Its not unprecedented in the IT world to have an entity push something through an 'update'/'backdoor' that stops a computer from working. Replace the word russian government with microsoft windows update There's your precedent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even more specifically, there have been any number of incidents of AV vendors pushing bad updates too. Now, who's to say that at least *some* of those bad updates were not done deliberately to cause disruption to one or more of their recipients? It would be trivial for a vendor in the pocket of a state actor to work out when Target #4796617's next AV update is due and start pushing out a bad patch just before that scheduled update then pull the update once they know they've got a hit.
Yeah, but the insidious problem with Kaspersky is the Russian government is so corrupted with the Russian Mafia who are tied to the criminal ramsonware and malware that you can't trust them especially! Even if you use an American one that the US has the private keys for you can be assured there is no Mafia or criminal gangs associated with them as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Not saying I agree with what you are saying but I would rather drink a poison of an American corporation (I am American) than the Russian government/hackers anyday. ... actually to give me a +mod 5 Linux would be the best way but even Ubuntu was caught doing telemetry. [fsf.org] Yes, I am using Chrome too typing this but no other good modern browser exists so what choice do I have?
But in the real world I want a usable desktop and be able to edit my resume and work on spreadsheets that look the same on my bosses Wind
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
> Of course if I were in Russia I would have my doubts about running US software for the same reason
I think that applies to the rest of the world outside US and not just Russia. American government has been the nr 1 information collector for a long time.
Actually it's been shown that American agencies even spy on US citizens. So you're not safe from government oppression even on US soil.
Basically: If any government intrusion is part of your personal threat model... you need to proceed very very carefully.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The EU? Are you fucking joking? They go ape shit any time we decide that they should pay for their own defence budget. The whole lot of them put together couldn't deal with Russia. They've been "on the dole" for far too long.
Nyet (Score:2)
Obligatory russian hackers joke [littlefun.org].
Depends on the threat. (Score:2)
If the biggest threat to you is ordinary criminal malware? No.
If the biggest threat to you is Russian intelligence? Yes.
If the biggest threat to you is US intelligence? No.
Yes (Score:3)
Israelis caught them being used to spy upon it's users which is why it is banned by the US government. In addition it replaces SSL certificates with their own doing MITM attacks and sniffing de-encrpyting your data.
I noticed Google Chrome even hides certificates now in the address bar after AV software was caught doing this! Coincidence?
Not only would I uninstall it. I would re-image too if you have to use Windows. You can't trust whatever backdoors or spyware Kaspersky could have changed in the Windows Registry or done to your system.
Re: (Score:2)
Israelis caught them being used to spy upon it's users which is why it is banned by the US government. In addition it replaces SSL certificates with their own doing MITM attacks and sniffing de-encrpyting your data.
Care to show us how to scan the content of encrypted traffic for malware without? Me and the makers of a few proxies and firewalls would like to know (hint: They all do exactly that).
Re: (Score:2)
Correct, but I still miss any kind of indication that someone controls both endpoints.
Re: (Score:3)
Why should we always trust what Israel's intelligence says without offering a tiny bit of evidence? And hasn't Israel itself hacked into other's computers and planted nasty time-bombs there? (stuxnet)
Yes. And ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... you shouldn't use any operating system or computer work environment that needs to rely on anti-virus software to relyably function.
Glad I could help.
If you can, then you don't need to, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about it for a minute.
Would truly malicious software actually allow itself to be uninstalled? If the Kaspersky people are competent at what they do, and if they are doing it for Putin, then you are in a world of hurt. The question of "Should you uninstall?" is relatively trivial compared to the big questions of "Are you able to uninstall the software?" and "How can you be sure you really got rid of it?"
The makers of the best anti-virus software (which might be Kaspersky for all I know) would know about every backdoor into your system and every way to hide bad code. If that company was evil or suborned for evil purposes, that same knowledge would make it impossible to remove their software unless they REALLY wanted to let you remove it.
All things considered, especially things like how good Putin is at manipulating people, at this point I'd have very little trust in any computer that ever ran any software that originated in Russia. Or even software that was exposed to Russians who have family members still living in Russia.
Technology remains morally neutral. Putin and his kleptocrats? Not so much.
Before commenting, I searched this discussion for prior statements of this obvious reality. Didn't find any, but maybe I just hadn't thought of the right keywords yet. So I'll try another search now...
Re: (Score:3)
I think it's a typical Slashdot response of unjustified hostility and disagreement. When in doubt, scream and shout. It's the Slashdot way.
I didn't say anything about American antivirus software being any more reliable or trustworthy or uninstallable than the Russian stuff. I suppose the amusing paradox here is that whoever is best at detecting malware becomes the least trustworthy precisely because they would also be the best at evading detection of their malware by other antivirus software.
However, I do h
Re: (Score:2)
The problems are really difficult and in any contest between amateurs and experts
This slightly mischaracterizes the situation.
It's a contest between one person (expert or not), and tens of thousands of experts.
Since we don't live in a movie, I wouldn't put my money on the one person.
It's Simple (Score:2)
It's simple, Russia has gone out of its way to make itself an adversarial state to the US (of which I am a member). The Russian government has also been very heavy handed in dealing with its own private sector often dictating how they conduct business and very much muddling the lines between free enterprise and government controlled. This all equals, don't trust "security" provided by the Russians.
Now one can go on with "Americans spy on everything" and yeah, I don't like that. But as a US citizen I like Ru
It depends (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's far less likely that an average citizen of the USA will find the KGB using data against them than their own government. As long as the Russians don't have an interest in you for intelligence gathering, you're going to be ignored and the data will go in a big Russian bit bucket.
Now, anything the NSA gathers on you? That's held to use against you. You're in their backyard and as long as computer processing power keeps increasing, they will keep increasing their data collection and mining operations so
An ultimately pointless effort? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We know that Russia tried to get into Kasperski and that means they do not work with them
You sure about that? I'm pretty sure the Ksaperski employees who are not in Russian prison would be quite willing to cooperate to avoid what happened to their colleagues.
Wait, the NSA wants me to? (Score:4, Informative)
If some reputable source would say it, I would certainly start rethinking my privacy strategy. But considering who's "recommending" this, I have to second guess whether the reason is that it keeps them from spying on me...
If I had told you 40 years ago that you can't trust one of your TLAs when they warn about Russians...
Bitdefender? (Score:2)
How about buying Bitdefender instead? Was just about to decide on Kaspersky but...
Anybody like it?
Should users uninstall their AV software? (Score:2)
This is the question that needs to be asked.
Here's a list of the features that every AV has:
Re: (Score:2)
It potentially makes your PC less secure, because AV needs kernel level drivers.
Explain based on your thorough knowledge of Antivirus software, Virus design and user mode and kernel mode software development experience, how it is possible to do this without a kernel mode driver? I await your thoughtful response. If you don't have one, STFU because you're an idiot
Re: (Score:2)
I've already said that an OS which requires an AV in order to guard apps/data is not the OS you should be running in the first place.
Also, I am indeed a raving idiot [computerworld.com] because I don't have an AV installed and for my 25+ years of computer usage I've never been infected or lost my credentials (aside from companies leaking them, e.g. Adobe [krebsonsecurity.com]). That couldn't be attributed to sheer luck, right? Windows is inherently insecure and an AV gives you a false sense of security as indicated by literally tens of millions o
Re: (Score:2)
I've already said that an OS which requires an AV in order to guard apps/data is not the OS you should be running in the first place.
Also, I am indeed a raving idiot [computerworld.com] because I don't have an AV installed and for my 25+ years of computer usage I've never been infected or lost my credentials (aside from companies leaking them, e.g. Adobe [krebsonsecurity.com]). That couldn't be attributed to sheer luck, right? Windows is inherently insecure and an AV gives you a false sense of security as indicated by literally tens of millions of examples when people have got infected while having a fully updated AV installed and running.
I asked you a direct question: How does one offer an antivirus solution that does not involve a kernel mode driver? And you failed to respond. Thanks for playing!
Re: Should users uninstall their AV software? (Score:2)
Except he wasn't arguing that you should run an AV that doesn't require kernel mode drivers. He said you shouldn't be running AV at all. You asked him to provide a solution for something he never suggested.
Re: (Score:2)
Except he wasn't arguing that you should run an AV that doesn't require kernel mode drivers. He said you shouldn't be running AV at all. You asked him to provide a solution for something he never suggested.
He made the claim "It potentially makes your PC less secure, because AV needs kernel level drivers." I prompted him for a basis for this claim and none was provided. Now if we want to discuss a different claim: like Antivirus software is more bad than it is good. We have to provide a basis for the claim usually in the form of evidence and/or subject matter expertise. When a person makes a claim like "It potentially makes your PC less secure, because AV needs kernel level drivers" yet doesn't appear to h
You should... (Score:2)
Uninstall Krapersky (Score:2)
go one step further (Score:2)
Users (Score:2)
Should just be careful what they download and what links they click on.
Re: (Score:2)
>Should just be careful what they download and what links they click on.
Yeah, you wouldn't want to accidentally drink polonium tea after posting an insult to Putin on social media...
As an individual, NO (Score:2)
No (Score:2)
Stuxnet
Flame
Equation Group
Duqu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
A more secure and safe internet is great news for all users.
No, because it makes no difference whatsoever. (Score:3)
Since the OS it's running on top of is already deeply rooted by the NSA, what difference does it make if another spy agency has a zero day for one particular program I'm running on there? Hell, I'm sure both the KGB and NSA have zero-days for half the software I run on my PC. It takes a good half-hour of regedits, scripts and service disabling just to turn off telemetry in Windows 10, and that's just the stuff you're meant to know about.
If I was working on documents that I really needed to keep secret from a state-sponsored attacker, I'd need to air-gap that shit. Whether I was running Windows, Linux, or XBMC.
As it is, while Kaspersky won't keep state-sponsored attackers out (and neither will any other AV, or Windows Defender), it does a darn good job of keeping non-state-sponsored attackers out. And if a malicious attacker gets access to the same kind of tools a state-sponsored attacker does, it makes no difference whether I'm using Kaspersky or something else.
Unless someone can show me that Kaspersky puts me MORE at risk from non-state-sponsored attackers than a competing AV (or no AV at all), then swapping one out for another makes no difference. And no, "a hacker could get a-hold of KGB's zero days" is not an argument against Kaspersky, since a hacker could also get a-hold of NSAs zero days which don't target Kaspersky.. you know, like the whole dump of NSA zero-days that was dumped.
Simpler solution (Score:2)
Kasperksy should go open-source (Score:2)
If Kaspersky wants to continue selling its software in the west, I think the only way they can convince everyone that they're NOT providing a backdoor in their software to FSB is by going open source. That is, they should make their AV engine open source, and but the virus definition data could be provided as a paid subscription.
It depends (Score:2)
Antivirus programs cause all kinds of trouble. I suggest, for people who are able and willing to stay alert and investigate warning signs, not using any antivirus program at all. Use a tripwire system instead.
If, however, you're the sort who ignores warnings and red flags, then use an antivirus program. Should you use a different one over Kaspersky? I don't think it matters that much.
All antivirus SW shall be dumped for WinDefender (Score:2)
After all, microsoft already has full control of the OS layer, no intermediaries required.
If Microsoft wants to spy on you, they will spy on you, no matter what antivirus you use. So, if you stick to Windows defender, there is one less vector for others to spy on you (because, once you start using windows as your OS, you cede control to Microsoft to potentialy spy on you).
Windows Defender (or Microsoft security essentials, if that's how you roll) are free (as in beer), have decent detection capabilities, do
Why would Russian government want my stuff? (Score:2)
The threat I have rational reasons to worry about is domestic and foreign cybercrime. I don't know why NSA would want my data either, but they probably don't need a very strong reason. Kaspersky would be same for defense from the crooks and a little better for defense from NSA, so it's a keeper. Also it would be naive to expect to be able to defend oneself from a major spy agency without training that can probably only be given by another spy agency.
I'm still wondering what they heck they... (Score:2)
No, your denial of reality is propaganda. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No, your denial of reality is propaganda. (Score:5, Insightful)
What evidence? I have yet to see any. At this time, this are all unproven accusations, with zero actual evidence and some really hard-to-believe claims. For example, that an NSA member would take NSA attack software and put it on his private computer that is connected to the Internet and runs AV is not credible at all. Seriously, doing so is a federal crime and the people with access to this stuff _now_ that. They also know how AV works and that their private computers may be compromised if connected to the Internet.
Don't get me wrong, if there were solid evidence, then that would be pretty interesting, but there is not. All there is is propaganda claims that turn out to be based on hot air once you dig a little deeper and some of them do not even make sense at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with it is the fact that it calls home to Russia with data about the system(s) it runs on. Kasperski's own web page says this.
Relations between the west and Russia have soured a bit, and people like Obama and Clinton and other war mongers have been pushing for a conflict with Russia. It's not a big stretch of imagination that a Russian General would utilize kasperski's AV software to deploy a Stuxnet type code on U.S. systems if a military conflict came about.
We can't take that chance
Russians have no particular interest in me, pose no threat to me personally, and cannot throw me in prison. My own government, on the other hand, incarcerates a huge percentage of the population and poses a significant and local threat to my life & freedom and have also been shown to use illegal/unconstitutional methods and practices to achieve their goals. They are actually *more* criminal than those stealing CC details.
I have far more to fear from the US government than from the Russians.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. You have just explained why you must not run _any_ AV on critical systems and why you must not run Windows or MacOS either.
Why? What job do you think SVR/FSB do? (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course russian intelligence services are using Kaspersky for their own purpose.
Re:No (Score:4, Interesting)
this is indeed pure propaganda by nsa.
kaspersky software detected(as it should) nsa's new malware in a negligent incompetent private contractor's private computer, alerted hq, russian gov may have heard about it, kaspersky is punished for doing its job. btw american made software did not detect such malware.
if, after knowing the facts(as opposed to nsa propaganda), you find kaspersky is a threat, uninstall it.
Re: (Score:3)
Propaganda ok, but I'd be surprised if the NSA had gotten involved in the propaganda business.
Now, there is some value in the claim that Kaspersky data is shared with spying agencies. Data is uploaded to their servers and these servers are a target. After all the Israelis have succeeded in getting in, in a reckless attempt to provide Kaspersky and others with the most advanced evolution of Stuxnet/Duqu. They claim the Russians also succeeded in getting access and it's not impossible. It's probably a lie, es
Re: (Score:3)
Re:No (Score:5, Funny)
This is all just propaganda.
Thank you for your insightful response and continued support comrade.
Re: (Score:2)
> Thank you for your insightful response and continued support comrade.
This is an ironic response consider who is and is not a communist these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Go peddle your trolling nonsense on infowars.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The whole mass hysteria about Russia comes from the vast list of things Russian agencies has done in recent years to divide competitors to their interests
FTFY. The email thing was overplayed vastly in the US media (while Trump's staff doing the exact same thing wasn't, curiously), but it doesn't change the fact that the Kremlin-backed candidate won in that election and it is likely that he hadn't without Russian involvement. Moreover, Russian meddling in US politics is part of a much wider programme, including the destabilisation of Georgia and Ukraine and the financial backing of populist movements in various European countries and contributions towards the
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
and it is likely that he hadn't without Russian involvement.
That's the hand waving part.
I get why you want to believe that. It's a lot easier than facing up to your policies being deeply unpopular for half the country. And your candidate being just as awful.
Her email thing was vastly under blown. The Secretary of State, discussing classified matters on email through a private email server in her bathroom? Little people are in prison for less.
The point is, we didn't need Russian "meddling" (what, do they employ the Scooby gang? "And I would have got away with it t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I get why you want to believe that. It's a lot easier than facing up to your policies being deeply unpopular for half the country. And your candidate being just as awful.
The election was won by tens of thousands of votes in a couple states. Such as the 11,000 vote margin in Michigan and the 68,000 vote margin in Pennsylvania.
With a margin that small, every single thing that nudged some voters was required to win the election. That includes email, the utterly incompetent Clinton campaign, and Russia. Take any one away and those margins flip.
Re:No (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry to break it to you but a big chunk of the rust belt didn't NEED any sort of "nudge" to hate Hillary
Try actually reading this phrase this time:
the utterly incompetent Clinton campaign
If you'd take a moment to stroll out of your echo chamber, you'd realize that the vast majority did not like either candidate.
Again, the margin in MI was 11,000 votes. That's easily flipped if Clinton had run a competent campaign. Or had Clinton not been so stupid about emails. Or if Russia wasn't running a large social media campaign. Or if the Obama administration had a better response to Flint. Or if the Obama administration had put bankers in jail in 2009. Or if the economy was 1% better. Or if the Obama, W, Clinton or Bush administrations had any idea what to do with the Rust Belt in their free trade idolatry.
Margins that small mean if you take away one small effect, the margin goes away. That is true no matter which candidate you supported.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a mountain of evidence that an adversarial nation to our own (Russia) attempted to sway our election in favor of the current winner. How you can just blow that off is beyond me. Russia is not our friend, not by a long shot.
Re: (Score:3)
> How you can just blow that off
My echo chamber consists of more than just screeching Hollywood liberals.
I also have a genuine understanding of history rather than the pathetic "Cliff Notes" version peddled by the media.
The American electorate has been split three ways since long before the Soviets were a convenient bogeyman.
Re: (Score:2)
Damage to national security due to a leak doesn't magically expire if there was a fucking election wrapped around that stupidity.
Funny, because that is pretty much exactly what the OP of this thread was saying:
She lost the election, can we stop this idiotic red scare?
Re: (Score:2)
Russia has been found to be using Kaspersky to spy on Americans, as part of their ongoing cyberwarfare campaign against the United States.
Really? Could you link the article?
Damn, be out of town a few days and all hell breaks loose!
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]